Reposted by permission from The Dollar Vigilante.
The crime? Violating YouTube’s Spam, Deceptive Practices and Scam policy.
The punishment? No uploading to YouTube for two weeks. And of course, three strikes and your channel is terminated.
So because I’ve said “WTF is spammy about my videos?” about a hundred times, I went to go look at said policy to see how my videos are violating YouTube’s policy. The points below, plus a load of stuff on elections and censuses, is what I found:
Video Spam: Content that is excessively posted, repetitive, or untargeted and does one or more of the following:
· Promises viewers they’ll see something but instead directs them off site.
· Gets clicks, views, or traffic off YouTube by promising viewers that they’ll make money fast.
· Sends audiences to sites that spread malware, try to gather personal information, or other sites that have a negative impact.
Misleading Metadata or Thumbnails: Using the title, thumbnails, description, or tags to trick users into believing the content is something it is not.
Manipulated Media: Content that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users (beyond clips taken out of context) and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.
Scams: Content offering cash gifts, “get rich quick” schemes, or pyramid schemes (sending money without a tangible product in a pyramid structure).
Grasping at straws much?
Let’s, for a millisecond, pretend that YouTube, Facebook, Google and the rest don’t have an ulterior agenda in “fighting misinformation amid the Covid-19 pandemic”.
The multi-million-dollar question remains: Who checks the fact checkers?
In today’s Lucy and Jeff Show, I raise a few controversial points (as always) and point out a variety of sheeple absurdity (again). Watch the video to see why YouTube deleted this video off our Lucy and Jeff channel less than an hour after it was posted, merely for reporting what the WHO said!
WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid Is No More Dangerous Than Flu…
Can this statement be considered to be true? Yes.
Can this statement be considered to be false? Sure.
But which is it?
Fact-checkers have no consistency about the question and standard applied. Which approach they take seems to be dictated by their initial perception of whether something seems to be suspect (to them). The psychology behind this flaw in fact-checking centers on confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek and accept only the evidence that confirms their first inclination.
Belsky and Gilovich describe it: “Once you develop a feeling about a subject—no matter how unconscious that preference may be—it becomes hard to overcome your bias”.
Worse, when certain posts are labeled fact-checked and false, users also believe that content without the label has been fact-checked and is true. It’s called the “implied truth effect.”
This raises an obvious question: Are there checks and balances to this awesome power – any recourse when fact checkers get things wrong?
The short answer is no, as Facebook says it defers exclusively to fact-checkers and won’t intervene to prevent a fact-checker’s contested verdict from suppressing a story’s visibility or demonetizing a news outlet.
And YouTube refuses to respond to my questions and appeal.
If this blog is a bit heavier than usual, it’s because we are in serious trouble.
Humanity, that is.
Because when freedom of speech and freedom of thought and freedom of choice is handed to “fact-checking” organizations to determine what is true and can be discussed, and what is false and must be “terminated”, all you have left are guys like Max Igan and Dan Dicks and Larken Rose and The Dollar Vigilante community.
The people who are willing to find and speak the real truth, and who will find a way to get it to you, no matter how many times we are shut up and shut down.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Posted on DollarVigilante.com on 10/11/2020.
Fair Use: In some instances, we include someone else’s footage that is covered in Fair Use for Documentary and Educational purposes with the intention of driving commentary and allowing freedom of speech.